Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] Last rites: obsolete acct-* packages

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2896 bytes --]


Florian Schmaus <flow@gentoo.org> writes:

> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote:
>> Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>> Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a
>>>>> policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages?
>>>>
>>>> Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping
>>>> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there
>>>> seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong
>>>> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces
>>>> the "don't keep them" path.
>>>
>>> The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy
>>> were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now.
>>>
>>> Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me.
>> Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is
>> customary.
>
> I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something.
>
> First, I have "pinged someone."

Ping on IRC (in #gentoo-qa, or could PM me), or again on the bug?

Someone asked the QA team to make a decision. We haven't yet, as I'd
forgot about it. It seems wrong to then just pretend that didn't happen.

At least try to get it resolved on that end by pinging again / asking us?

>
> As of writing this, I was the last to comment on the QA bug about five
> months ago, asking why we would want to keep unused acct-* packages
> [1]. Since then, this has not been answered, and there have been zero
> other replies. That signaled me that there was no interest in pursuing
> the matter further. In addition, we have already removed acct-*
> packages in the past.
>

I'm sorry that somebody missed a ping in a FOSS project. But this is
probably not the first time it's happened to you.

> Secondly, nobody immediately forces anything.
>

I'm saying that speaking to someone works better than committing
something and then asking for discussion.

> Sam, I am afraid, but I believe that the situation is different from
> how you frame it.
>
>
> The proponents of keeping obsolete acct-* packages have the inventive
> to establish their preferred policy.

It's a bit aggressive to take action, without pinging before doing so
(you did several months ago, that's not really the same thing), to
"incentivise" someone. 

>
> Accusing me of not facilitating a QA bug that deals with establishing
> a policy I do not favor seems unfair.
>

I'm not sure I'm doing that. I'm saying that doing this preempts a
decision and that a ping would've been polite.

> Do you think that a QA bug that has not seen progress in nearly five
> months should be able to establish an illegitimate shadow policy?
>

Come on.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]